Going to conferences seeing researchers who've built a career doing subpar (sometimes blatantly 'fake') work has made me grow increasingly wary of experts. Worst is lots of people just seem to go along with it.

Still I'm skeptical about any sort of system trying to figure out 'trust'. There's too much on the line for researchers/students/... to the point where anything will eventually be gamed. Just too many people trying to get into the system (and getting in is the most important part).

▲

mezyt 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The worse system is already getting gamed. There's already too much on the line for researchers/students, so they don't admit any wrong doing or retract anything. What's the worse that could happen by adding a layer of trust in the h-index ?

	▲	boelboel 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think it could end up helping a bit in the short term. But in the end an even more complicated system (even if in principle better) will reward those spending time gaming it even more. The system ends up promoting an even more conservative culture. What might start great will end up with groups and institutions being even more protective of 'their truths' to avoid getting tainted. Don't think there's any system which can avoid these sort of things, people were talking about this before WW1, globalisation just put it in overdrive.